In some juvenile court systems around the country, young people regularly appear at hearings in handcuffs, leg irons, or both. But 21 states (five this year alone) have reformed such shackling practices through statute, court action, or policy.

The Crime Report discusses the history of child shackling, the dangerous effect that shackling has on youth, recent efforts of reform throughout the country, and the need to end routine youth shackling.

Maine lawmakers on the criminal justice committee heard two bills that deal with shackling inmates. The first prohibits restraints on youth in court in most cases.The second prohibits shackling pregnant inmates.

A report for the United Nations' Human Rights Council condemns the use of extreme sentencing, juvenile life without parole, shackling, solitary confinement, and youth in adult court in juvenile justice systems in the U.S.

Children in far too many states are forced to appear in court shackled -- often wearing handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains connecting ankle and hand restraints. This policy update reviews strategies to end indiscriminate shackling of youth in court developed with the support of Models for Change. (Photo by Victor Keegan: http://bit.ly/1uGjF6P.) HTML version here: http://bit.ly/1taMkBi

The Department of Children, Youth and Families expanded an agency policy prohibiting the use of mechanical restraints on pregnant girls at the Rhode Island Training School. The new policy includes more detailed guidelines and new protections for pregnant and post-partum girls, requiring removal of restraints upon the request of medical personnel in emergency or urgent situations. When medical personnel request removal of restraints in non-urgent situations, Training School staff must seek guidance from a supervisor. The new policy requires that all girls be notified of the policy upon admission to the facility. The policy includes an exception allowing the use of restraints if a girl is determined to be a danger to herself or others, or poses a risk of flight that cannot be addressed by other means. Policy 1200.0832, October 2, 2012.

The California legislature amended the penal code to prohibit restraint by the use of leg irons, waist chains, or handcuffs behind the body of a woman who is incarcerated and is pregnant, is in labor, in recovery, or has recently given birth. Such restraint may only be used when deemed necessary for the safety and security of the woman, staff, or the public. The law also requires that women who are incarcerated be advised of these standards orally or in writing. A.B. 2530/Act No. 726, signed into law September 28, 2012.

A new law in Pennsylvania requires that restraints be removed from youth prior to court proceedings. The law provides for exceptions if the court makes a determination—on the record and with the input of the youth—that restraints are necessary to prevent physical harm to the youth or another person; to prevent disruptive courtroom behavior, given evidence of prior potentially harmful behavior; or to prevent the youth from fleeing, provided there is evidence of risk of escape. S.B. 817/Act No. 56, signed into law May 29, 2012; effective July 28, 2012.

Citing the risks to women and pregnancy and the fact that the vast majority of women who are incarcerated in Florida have committed non-violent offenses, state law now prohibits the use of restraints on a pregnant woman who is incarcerated during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery. There is an exception for extraordinary circumstances, including substantial risk of flight or injury to medical staff, corrections personnel, or the woman herself. Additionally, the use of restraints is prohibited during the third trimester unless there are documented security risks that require the use of restraints. Any woman who is restrained in violation of the law may file a grievance. All correctional institutions must inform women of the rules upon entry, in the prisoner handbook, and by posting the policies and practices on the walls in visible areas. S.B. 524/Act No. 2012-41, signed into law April 6, 2012; effective July 1, 2012.

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.

A circuit court judge in Yamhill County, Oregon held that youth may be shackled in the courtroom and during video appearances only when it is necessary to prevent escape, injury, or destruction. The shackling may last only as long as such danger exists. The court also addressed strip searching in the case, ruling that strip searches may not be routinely conducted after visits and court appearances; searches must be restricted to those situations in which there is a reasonable suspicion that the youth might have acquired contraband.

A ruling from the New York State Supreme Court repealed the state’s Office of Children and Family Services’ shackling policy that had been in place since 1996. According to the decision, the current policy requiring shackling of any child in custody being transported between state facilities or from a facility to anywhere else violates the state’s law on shackling youth, which allows shackling of only dangerous youth as a last resort, and only for up to half an hour.

The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that effective January 1, 2010, the restraint of juveniles in courtrooms is forbidden unless a judge finds that a youth is likely to be violent. The decision describes the indiscriminate shackling of juveniles as “repugnant, degrading, humiliating, and contrary to the stated primary purposes of the juvenile justice system and to the principles of therapeutic justice.”